User talk:JournalScholar: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Blocked: fix template |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::::CSICOP isn't self published. You will also find no wording at [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:V]] which says self published sources can not be used, read it. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
::::CSICOP isn't self published. You will also find no wording at [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:V]] which says self published sources can not be used, read it. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::A press release is self-published. It explicitly states in [[WP:V]] that self-published sources cannot be used about third parties, they can only in certain circumstances be used about themselves.[[WP:SPS]] --[[User:JournalScholar|JournalScholar]] ([[User talk:JournalScholar#top|talk]]) 16:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
:::::A press release is self-published. It explicitly states in [[WP:V]] that self-published sources cannot be used about third parties, they can only in certain circumstances be used about themselves.[[WP:SPS]] --[[User:JournalScholar|JournalScholar]] ([[User talk:JournalScholar#top|talk]]) 16:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Blocked == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
|||
Revision as of 18:59, 3 September 2012
Welcome!
Hello, JournalScholar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You are a STAR!
 |
The Missing Barnstar | |
You are doing great work here! This award for your efforts is long overdue. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
Hi
You are removing material from an article but this is being reverted because the material is reliably sourced. I suggest you engage in a discussion on the talkpage. Continually performing your action without discussion is known as edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- What material is reliably sourced? Quote the material and provide the source that includes that material.--JournalScholar (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just checked, not a single thing you reverted could be verified by a reliable source. I suggest looking at WP:RS and WP:NOR. --JournalScholar (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Removing material without giving people a chance to improve it is disruptive. Knock it off. Press releases can be reliable sources; I don't known why you think they can't. If a group released a press release, clearly it is reliable for their own opinions. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Self-published sources CANNOT be used on Wikipedia see WP:V and WP:RS. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- CSICOP isn't self published. You will also find no wording at WP:RS or WP:V which says self published sources can not be used, read it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- A press release is self-published. It explicitly states in WP:V that self-published sources cannot be used about third parties, they can only in certain circumstances be used about themselves.WP:SPS --JournalScholar (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- CSICOP isn't self published. You will also find no wording at WP:RS or WP:V which says self published sources can not be used, read it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Self-published sources CANNOT be used on Wikipedia see WP:V and WP:RS. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Removing material without giving people a chance to improve it is disruptive. Knock it off. Press releases can be reliable sources; I don't known why you think they can't. If a group released a press release, clearly it is reliable for their own opinions. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)